Whether or not that case is solid depends upon two things:

Beyond this, we often have another problem: conflicting evidence. Two or more seemingly good sources may give contradictory facts. Here again, before we can settle on one and reject the other, we are obliged to build a solid and persuasive case.

How is that case built? What kind of evidence does it take to be convincing-and how much? Whom do we have to convince-just ourselves or everybody else? This article tackles those questions with an explanation of genealogy's long-established standard of proof and a step-by-step guide to constructing a sound argument.

The Standard
Before we can build any case, we must understand the tools and the language we have to work with. For genealogists, the basics are these: ³

Types of Evidence

Use of Evidence
For safety then, should we go for those primary sources that make direct statements? Not necessarily. The individuals who created that evidence may have erred or lied. On the other hand, a derivative work that carefully reproduces a trustworthy original may be more dependable than an original whose information or format is flawed. We carefully evaluate each source on its own merits.

There are no measures we can apply to weigh the "strength level" of records—not even those legal terms Court TV has introduced into America's daily lexicon. "Preponderance of the evidence," which genealogists have used for the past quarter-century, now keeps company in genealogical circles with "clear and convincing evidence," "beyond reasonable doubt," and similar forms of semantic quicksand. But the genealogist who tries to apply the criteria by which courts decide guilt and innocence faces a double problem:

One very active lineage-society registrar says she always conducts research through preponderance of the evidence: before she goes to the library, she pre-ponders what she knows and plans her research accordingly. More common are published genealogies that quote several sources on a certain fact, credit another source with a contrary fact, and then conclude: because several sources carry more weight than one, the preponderance (weight) of the evidence lies with the majority. (The weight any evidence carries, of course, depends upon the quality of the source, not upon how many times it is repeated in print.) Absolutely rampant in genealogy are such blanket statements as "I've looked at all the evidence and decided that the preponderance is thus-and-such"—with no evidence or arguments to support the edict.

At law, preponderance of the evidence is a standard only for civil trials. There, a decision can be made on the barest of margins. Juries are convened to hear evidence, and they are expected to make a decision based upon whatever facts they are given. They are instructed to make that decision even if something is just slightly "more probable than not." The weight of the evidence, theoretically, could be fifty-one percent in favor versus forty-nine percent against, yet they must declare one side right and one side wrong.

In genealogy we rarely see an arbitrary deadline by which we must decide the parentage, spouse, identity, or vital-event date of a distant forebear. If very persuasive evidence does not exist to accept or reject a point, we simply delay a decision until adequate evidence is found.

The legal standards "beyond reasonable doubt" and "clear and convincing" are equally ill-suited. The first, which applies in criminal cases, demands a virtual certainty that genealogy cannot achieve, short of DNA testing. The second is actually befuddling; its definition varies from state to state.

In short, genealogy's level of acceptability for evidence and proof arguments falls between two legal extremes: "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt." Our standard is neither one nor the other. Genealogical scholars of a generation ago (primarily those with legal backgrounds) did borrow from the law in an attempt to define genealogy's standards. In doing so, they had to redefine terms to meet our field's required level of proof. That alteration carried a steep price: chiefly, conflict with the legal profession, whose standard had been tampered with; and poorly grounded arguments by confused genealogists, who viewed the POE as an "easy way out" when research led to a brick wall.

In reality, the standard of proof that exists in genealogy-as applied by America's best throughout most of this century-is far more rigorous than that of most fields within the humanities. It has to be. In other disciplines, where scholars broadly paint the activities and behaviors of masses of people or quantify averages, individual mistakes can be inconsequential to the whole. However, a single mistake in genealogy can wreak great and longstanding havoc, by grafting an ancestral individual onto the wrong family tree.

Clearly, the time is overdue for genealogy to set and define its own standard-free of the baggage carried by other fields.

The Genealogical Proof Standard
The principle and practice long established in the genealogical field is simply the genealogical proof standard. In sum, a point may be considered "proved" if five criteria are met: (a) the research is exhaustive; (b) the argument rests upon reliable records, correctly interpreted; (c) any contradictory evidence is soundly rebutted; (d) all statements of fact are scrupulously documented; and (e) all deductions are carefully reasoned and explained. However, any conclusion of "proof" is subject to re-evaluation if new and substantial evidence emerges to the contrary.

There are no shortcuts, no magic formulas to automatically calculate the credibility we give to any type of evidence. Weighing our findings is a totally subjective process based on understanding, experience, and skill—that is, understanding of human nature and documentary materials, and skill at finding and developing whatever evidence does exist.

The application of this standard to difficult research problems is an eight-step process.

The Process
Step 1: Conduct exhaustive research
Every record known to exist should be used, and intense effort should be made to find those we don't yet know about. It does not matter how many records of a certain type we already have. As long as one relevant record remains unexamined, a potential land mine waits to explode our theory. We cannot make a reliable decision based upon just part of the evidence.

We do! All good genealogists have confessions about work they had to redo because they failed to copy all detail from records previously "looked at." Invariably, amazing things happened when they went back and thoroughly extracted that data. Bits and pieces from one document, which seemed to mean nothing by themselves, began to mesh with "trivial" things from other records. Patterns began to emerge amid tax roll statistics. Or the platted metes and bounds to a piece of property fit like a jigsaw puzzle piece into an adjoining tract, linking the ancestor to a potential parent. At every step of our research, our recognition of both clues and "obvious answers" is limited by what we know at the moment. Records that "don't tell us what we need" (judged by the limits of our current knowledge) may generate a "Eureka!" next year when we review that detail from a broadened perspective. (A census neighbor from Reconstruction-era Texas, whose name means nothing to us now, may leap to extreme importance when we find our ancestor coupled with a man of the same name in a pre-Civil War naturalization record in Ohio.) If, in our first examination of records, we fail to extract all details those records offer, we will not have adequate construction materials to build our case when all records have been examined.

Step 3: Track sources to their origins
Each time we approach a research problem, it is logical to begin with a basic literature search. Indexes and databases (online or textual) can be wonderful aids. Published record volumes, family histories, and journal articles are priority items. However, if we are lucky enough to find the data we hope for, we cannot stop there.

No matter how grateful we are to the saints who performed these labors for us, the fact remains that such work has been transcribed, perhaps translated, and then typed. It is often synthesized, summarized, or interpreted, and too often rearranged in alphabetical order. The odds of human error are much too great for us to trust derivative works as the final authority on any point in our ancestral line. Such trust is justified only when the original is no longer extant.

Nothing can be stronger than the materials used to build it. Arguments based upon flawed transcripts will crumble. So, as we use derivative works, we look for a preface, to see what the compiler has to say about the nature of the materials. As we extract specific detail, we check whether the compiler identifies the origins and whereabouts of the originals. We copy all particulars the compiler provides amid text, notes, or preface. Then we track the cited source to its earliest extant form.

Step 4: Play devil's advocate
As a hypothesis begins to take shape, we should challenge our own theory. We go back to the evidence—seek out more material if possible, because new things do turn up—and try to find flaws in our own logic. We should anticipate arguments and disprove all possible counter-theories, before anyone can pose them. Whenever we build a case, we can expect our share of Doubting Thomases. But if we have foreseen, researched, and rebutted all opposing arguments, then our thoroughness and objectivity can dispel doubts.

The point cannot be emphasized too strongly. Thoroughness and objectivity are the foundations upon which every case is built. As genealogists, we don't set out to prove any point. We set out to find and correlate all the evidence, weigh the reliability of each piece, and decide where the weight of that evidence lies.

Step 5: Draft a written argument
Once we have determined that all credible factors point persuasively toward a certain conclusion, then we are obliged to argue our case on paper. No one will take our word for it if we say, "Oh, believe me, I have spent twenty years studying this problem, and the evidence shows John is the son of James." What evidence?

A convincing argument does six things:

1.It explains the problem-thoroughly but concisely. It summarizes all personal detail needed to understand the people and the situation. Yet it chooses this detail carefully to avoid overwhelming readers.

2.It identifies the known resources and their locations. It describes their scope and their limitations. It notes records that should exist but weren't found. It reassures readers that we do know the sources and have diligently tried to use them all.

3.It presents our conclusion, in a clear and simple statement.

4.It sets forth all evidence that supports the conclusion. In detail, it walks readers step by step through the research process. It describes strengths and weaknesses in the evidence, so readers can understand the materials. It documents every statement of fact in proper form, so readers can locate, verify, and analyze the evidence for themselves. It provides a thorough explanation for every judgment or conjecture or estimate-every "perhaps," every "possibly," and every "circa" that is used in the argument-so readers understand our reasoning.

5.It presents all contradictory findings-anything or everything that seems to negate our theory. It is honest and aboveboard, never obscuring details that might weaken the argument. Instead, it provides well-grounded reasons why the contradictory evidence is less credible.

6.It closes with a summary that restates the main points of the problem and the conclusion.

Step 6: Seek constructive criticism
After we have honed this argument to our own idea of perfection, we should seek critiques from those who know the subject well. If we are active in the field and are building a support network among "experts" in our specialty, those colleagues will likely be generous with their time and candid with their criticism. If we have not yet made contacts of "expert" caliber—or if we are professionals working this problem for a client—then we should consider commissioning a critical reading from a professional with recognized problem-solving expertise.

Here we do not depend upon those cousins of like mind who are working with us on the project. Total objectivity is needed. We have already invested much in this research. If our deductions are off-target, the mistake will cost far more as we proceed to extend the wrong line. An expert assessment, at this stage, could be one of the wisest expenditures we make. Above all, we make it clear to the manuscript readers that we want a frank review. We bury our egos—no writer can afford to have one. At worst, our readers may convince us to rethink our whole hypothesis, or offer suggestions for strengthening it. Invariably, readers recommend some rewriting to clarify points.

Then we reassess, or redo research, and rewrite.

Step 7: Publish the argument
The published word has power. This is a fact we all recognize but are careful not to abuse. There simply is no better way to "establish" a fact than to put it in print. Given this, there are alternatives to weigh. Should we publish our findings ourselves-perhaps online (where they will be eagerly gobbled up and perpetuated by trusting "newbies") or in a family history (in which the argument may be obscured by the mass of material presented)? Or should we submit our solved problem to a journal, as an instructive case study?

If we choose the latter, what kind of forum is best? Many options exist-from local or state society magazines, to family newsletters, to journals with a reputation for scholarship. Some periodicals, of course, publish anything submitted. Others are highly selective.

The more critical and demanding the forum in which we publish our argument, the greater the likelihood that our conclusion will be respected. This one factor alone may determine whether or not our case is accepted by the lineage society our family members want to join. The leading journals in genealogy (as in all investigative fields) are refereed ones-that is, they submit incoming manuscripts to several experts for written evaluations before they decide upon acceptance or rejection.⁴

Whatever the outcome, you will benefit from a good journal's peer-review process. If your work is accepted, revisions may be suggested or required. In the end, you will have the satisfaction of knowing you have presented the strongest possible case that can be made from known evidence.

Step 8: Keep an open mind
No matter how carefully studied a problem may be, the case is never closed in genealogy. It is simply impossible, from the study of historical evidence, to prove parentage, identity, or origins beyond any margin of error. The most we can do is to establish probability through an expert analysis of the evidence known to date.

If our published argument is challenged, we carefully consider the opposing views. We request proofs for counterclaims, and respect them when furnished. If evidence emerges to suggest that our case needs rebuilding—or retracting—we do so, cheerfully keeping in mind the line widely attributed to the late Donald Lines Jacobus, first inductee into the National Genealogy Hall of Fame: "Any genealogist who claims to have never made an error is either a liar or a fool!"

Conclusion
Building a case that meets the genealogical standard of proof is not a quick and easy way to break a stalemate. It is a labor-intensive responsibility. But time and again in genealogy, we find this to be the only way to break a stalemate. Building a case is an acceptable solution when no single document can be found that conveniently states the proof we need. But it is acceptable only if our case is solidly constructed. The four cornerstones on which that case will be built are total objectivity, exhaustive research, skillful correlation and analysis of evidence, and a properly crafted argument that sets forth (with documentation) all evidence and all reasoning that supports our conclusion.

Notes
1. When correctly applied in genealogy, a "preponderance of the evidence argument" follows the criteria explained by Walter Lee Sheppard, CG, FASG, in 1987: "Exactly what is the preponderance of the evidence? When direct evidence is lacking, but there is contemporary, primary evidence of a number of related matters all pointing in the same direction, and the evidence so accumulated leaves no doubt in the reader's mind that only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn from it, then it is appropriate to say that a fact can be established by the preponderance of the evidence. However, if there is found a single contemporary document that points in a different direction, and if it is not possible to show clearly that this document is in error, then the argued case has not been proved acceptably." See "What Proves a Lineage: Acceptable Standards of Evidence," National Genealogical Society Quarterly 75 (June 1987): 125.

This standard, which had been used by leading genealogists for a decade before Sheppard's definition, was introduced to the genealogical community at large at the 1987 NGS National Conference by Ms. Mills in "The Preponderance of the Evidence Principle: How to Build a Case When No Document Seems to Solve Your Problem," the official presentation of the Association of Professional Genealogists. For more recent treatments of the subject, see Mills, "The Preponderance of Evidence Principle: How to Build a Case to 'Prove' Your Point" (lecture, 1992 Federation of Genealogical Societies conference); audiocassette recording available as Phoenix S-92, from Repeat Performance, 2911 Crabapple Lane, Hobart, IN 46342; and Christine Rose, CG, CGL, FASG, "What Is 'The Preponderance of the Evidence'?" NGS Quarterly 83 (March 1995): 5-16.

2. For specifics of the BCG decision, see "Board News and Notes," OnBoard 3 (September 1997): 21; and Helen F. M. Leary, CG, CGL, FASG, "Evidence Revisited: DNA, POE, and GPS," OnBoard 4 (January 1998): 1-2. OnBoard, BCG's educational newsletter, is available by subscription from BCG at PO Box 14291, Washington, DC 20044.

3. For more on standards of evidence for genealogists, see Mills, Evidence! Citation and Analysis for the Family Historian; Noel C. Stevenson, J.D., FASG, , rev. ed. (Laguna Hills, Calif.: Aegean Park Press, 1989); Donn Devine, J.D., CG, CGI, "Evidence and Sources-and How They Differ," Ancestry (May-June 1997): 26-29; and Val D.

Greenwood, AG, "Evaluating Evidence," Genealogical Journal 25 (1997): 51-62. For these legal terms, see Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1979).

4. Among the better-known refereed journals are the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, The American Genealogist, and The Genealogist. Each has its distinctive focus or style. A close reading of several recent issues will provide excellent models for crafting your own work and will suggest whether one or another journal is an appropriate outlet for your type of case.

Elizabeth Shown Mills, the long-time editor of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly and a past president of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, has a great deal of experience solving difficult research problems through soundly constructed case studies. Her book, Evidence! Citation and Analysis for the Family Historian (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997), is considered the new standard reference work on its subject.